BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member
Tuesday the 13th day of April , 2010
C.C.No. 133/09
Between:
N.Nagi Reddy, S/o. N.Ramalinga Reddy,
Native of Dudyala Village, Presently R/o. Baba Brubdavab Nagar, H.No.51/15A-35P, Kurnool-518002. .Complainant
-Vs-
I.C.I.C.I. Lambard General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Manager,
U-Con Plaza, shop No.23 and 24, 2nd floor, Kurnool-518001. …Opposite PartY
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Azmathulla, Advocate, for the complainant, and opposite party is called absent set ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramiah, President)
CC. 133/09
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of the C. P. Act,1986 praying to
a) to pass an award directing the opposite party to pay Rs.2,95,590-00 towards the cost of the vehicle as per the insurance policy to the complainant.
b) To award Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and for hardship to the complainant .
c) to award interest @ 36% p.a from the date of the accident.
d) to award cost of the complainant
e) to pass such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble forum may deem to fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:- The complainant is the registered owner of the car bearing No. AP 21-N - 8078 .The said car was insured with the opposite party under policy bearing No.3001/52468427/01/100 .The policy was in force from 06-09-2008 to 07-09-2009 midnight. It is a comprehensive policy covering the risk to the limit of Rs.2,95,590/- . The said car met with an accident on 06-02-2009 and sustained major damage. After the accident the complainant informed the opposite party about the accident and the opposite party appointed a surveyor by name Prasad Reddy .The surveyor submitted his report stating that the car of the complainant is totally damaged basing on the surveyors report the opposite party took the vehicle and promised to pay the entire cost of the vehicle as per
the value in the insurance certificate .The opposite party obtained a claim form from the complainant but the same was not settled .The non settlement of the claim by the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service. Hence the complaint.
3. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A5 , are marked. The opposite party remained ex-parte .
4. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the respondents/ opposite parties ?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed
for?
(iii) To what relief ?
5. Point No.1 & 2: It is the case of the complainant that he is the owner of the car bearing registration No. AP 21-N - 8078 and that it was insured with the opposite party . Ex.A1 is the R.C of the car. It reveals that the complainant is the owner of the Indica Car registration No. AP-21-N-8078 . Ex.A3 shows that the said car was insured with the opposite party under policy bearing No. 3001/52468427/01/100 . The said policy was in force from 06-09-2008 to 07-09-2009.
6. It the case of the complainant that his car met with an accident on 06-02-2009 within the jurisdiction of Addakal police station of
Mahaboobnagar District and in the said accident the car was badly damaged . The complainant in support of his contention filed Ex.A5 copy of the FIR . As seen from Ex.A5 it is very clear that on the basis of the complaint given by Syed Kalid Hussain a case in Cr.No. 16/08 was registered by the SHO , Addakal Police Station . It is mentioned in Ex.A5 copy of FIR that on 06-02-2009 while the Indica Car bearing NO. AP 21-N-8078 was proceeding to Hyderabad from Kurnool , it dashed against lorry . There is no mention in Ex.A5 that the Indica Car belonging into the complainant was damaged in the said accident.
7. It is for the complainant to establish that his car was damaged in the accident and that he submitted claim form to the opposite party claiming insurance. Simply because the opposite party remained ex-parte it cannot be said what all the complainant affirmed in her sworn affidavit is true and correct .The complainant simply filed copy of the claim form Ex.A4 said to have been submitted to the opposite party. It is not mentioned on which date the complainant submitted the original of Ex.A4 to the opposite party. He did not file any proof to show that original of Ex.A4 was received by the opposite party. It is also the case of the complainant that the opposite party after knowing about the accident appointed surveyor by name Prasad Reddy and that the surveyor submitted the report to the opposite party stating that the car was damaged. The complainant did not choose to file the copy of the surveyors report . He also did not choose to file the sworn affidavit of the Prasad Reddy who is said to have examined the vehicle and found it was damaged in the accident.
8. It is also the case of the complainant that the damaged car was taken by the opposite party from the complainant promising to pay the entire cost of the vehicle . The complainant did not place any evidence on record to show that his damaged car was taken by the opposite party .He did not saying in his sworn affidavit the date on which the damaged car was taken by the opposite party . Simply basing on Ex.A1 to A5 it cannot be said that the car of the complainant was damaged in the alleged accident dated 06-02-2009 and that the damaged vehicle was taken by the opposite party promising to pay the cost of the vehicle. The complainant could not establish that his vehicle bearing NO. AP 21-N-8078 was damaged in the accident on 06-02-2009 and that the said car was taken by the opposite party promising to pay the entire cost of the car.
9. As the complainant failed to establish that his car was damaged in accident and that it was taken by the opposite party the complainant is not entitled to any one of the relief’s claimed by the complainant. Deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party is not established .
10. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her , corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 13th day of April, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Xerox copy of R.C of the car bearing No. A.P.21-N_8078.
Ex.A2. Xerox copy of driving license of S. Mahaboob Basha.
Ex.A3. Xerox copy of insurance policy No.3001/52468427/01/000.
Ex.A4. Xerox copy of claim form.
Ex.A5. Xerox copy of F.I.R in Cr.No.16/2009 of Addakal P.S.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
